Want a bunch of free fiat currency and corporate products, and can't get them on their own. They run to government to 'give' them what they want, and
expect other people to pay for it.

Socialism indeed.

21st century definition that fits it like a glove. Always decrying them evil rich folks as the villans.

Never looking in the mirror to see that reflection that shows them to be as greedy,materalistic.

Back to them socialists,terrorists,conmen, but I don't want to ever meet the likes of Reid,Pelosi, and OBama, and company.

edit on 13-12-2013
by neo96 because: (no reason given)

It would help if you knew what socialism meant. It's not an all encompassing term. Look at the list of socialist countries, many in a much better
state of affairs regarding healthcare, education, quality of living and class disparity, compared to the US.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are
proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.

China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are
proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.

As for the heritage foundation 'endorsing' it, I think it should be apparent from the fact that they published books and sponsored lectures about it
over the course of several years. If that don't count as an endorsement in your book, then I think you're a bit off.

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support
of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice
would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was
limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms
that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government
insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that
the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

From the Butler quote above, it seems to us that the brief overstates the extent to which the proposed Heritage mandate was "limited." But it is
clear that Heritage has repudiated the idea of an individual mandate.

What kind of world do you live in where publishing books about a policy, publishing backgrounders, sponsoring lectures, etc, do not qualify as an
endorsement?

What standard do you propose for determining what the Heritage foundation 'endorses' ? Can you list any policies that the Heritage foundation does
endorse by your standard? If not, then you need to reconsider your standard.

The reality is that the Heritage foundation clearly was promoting a policy that was the basis for both Romneycare in Massechusetts and eventually
Obamacare!

Notice how they call it, in their own publication THE HERITAGE PLAN? To the ordinary observer, that might indicate that they think it's a
good idea. But hey, what do I know.

xuenchenthe whole point was to offer a feeble alternative to HillaryCare

Here's a history lesson for you. Clinton was elected in 1992. Hillarycare made its debut in 1993. The Heritage healthcare plan was trotted out
first in 1989, as I have already linked above. Now that you know this, how can you claim that the Heritage plan was "a febble alternative" to a
policy that didn't even exist at the time?

Back in the day, Republicans actually thought they had to offer policy alternatives that might improve the situation of ordinary Americans... that's
no longer the case, obviously. They just support the status quo and mor tax cuts for the rich, and to hell with health care reform.

xuenchen
and from the wsj article:

. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate....

Well the obvious implication from your own quoted text is that in the past, Heritage supported an insurance mandate. Not to mention official Heritage
documents linked and quoted above.

xuenchenThe Democrats swallowed it hook line and sinker

ZERO Republicans voted for it

So you're implying that the Heritage plan was some kind of subterfuge or trick? Well I guess it sure backfired on Heritage then, didn't it? Now
they've been forced to do a 180 and tell everyone that their plan was crap all along. How can that be?

It's simple: after Obama was elected, congressional republicans made it their sole objective to make obama a one-term president... Hence they object
to anything he proposes, unconditionally... even if it was their idea in the first place. What a bunch of short-sighted losers they turned out to be.
Instead of trying to make healthcare reform better, they opted to oppose it at all costs. This strategy has been a total failure for them, they have
lost at every turn!

It is the natural political state of the human tribe which is the source of any national entity.

The social theorists understand that the ancient tribal society didn’t separate individuals as capitalism does intrinsically. They understood the
basic perception that the tribe together can at least maintain a modicum of survival materialism for the species.

To allow millions of people to become economically so alienated from the material norm of survival, through social interaction based on
industrialization and capitalism, is a travesty of modern society not any particular reflection on the individuals who become economically alienated
in a capitalist world.

So in reality it is capitalism that is a development of societal industrialization and relatively unnatural and socialism is the natural state of the
human family

2. Because of point 1, many wage-earners who otherwise will be afraid to lose their work-based insurance will be able to start their own businesses,
since they will be able to get a fair deal on the exchanges.

What ??? LOL...again, No advantage here the the majority of
citizens.

The point is that because Obamacare ensures that individuals and families cannot be denied access to insurance through the exchanges, nobody will be
trapped at their job just for the sake of maintaining insurance. In the previous system, if you had good health care insurance through your job and
then you or a family member got a serious illness or injury, you were trapped... if you lost your job or left it to start your own business, you could
be locked out of the individual insurance market. Thus, if you had it in mind to leave your company to start your own business, you were SOL. The
removal of the threat of losing insurance is a benefit for all.

xuenchen

4. Once a person does contract a serious illness, they will still be able to switch programs, instead of being forced to deal with the same insurer or
go without.

Maybe, but the financial burden is still there.

What are you even talking about? Yes you still have to pay your premiums and deductibles, just like you always did, but that's no different
than the previous system. What do you want, free health care for all?

xuenchen

5. Millions of americans will be brought into the insurance system, relieving them from the constant threat of Medical
bankruptcy.

No proof at all. The deductibles will force bankruptcies just like before. There's no subsidies for the costs of
service. Only for the 'premiums'. Not to mention people who simply won't buy in.

The deductibles may force some people into bankruptcy. But they are in no way comparable to the total costs of a catastrophic illness... in fact out
of pocket costs (that you pay only if you actually need healthcare) for a year will be
capped at $6,350 for an individual starting in
2014 That's a lot of money, but far less than, for example $100,000 for a year
of chemotherapy.
You say that there's no subsidies for the costs of service... Only for the premiums. But premiums are used to buy insurance, which pays for costs of
service... and out of pocket costs are capped very low compared to getting ill without insurance.
Sure some people won't buy in. But they really have no excuse not to with the premium subsidies. And I don't know why you would expect them to
benefit from the system if they choose to break the law.

xuenchen

6. Health insurance policies will now meet minimum standards, which will prevent companies from basically scamming people with products that basically
cover nothing.

We need to see some cold hard statistics to prove all the claims of "sub-standard" policies. Plus, many people had excellent
policies that "just missed" the new 'standards'. The new plans include things they don't need or want, and cost twice as much with higher
deductibles.

If you object to some specific aspect of the standards for coverage under Obamacare, go ahead and spell it out. Somehow you think that I should
provide evidence that there is substandard insurance to justify standards... My answer to that is that if there isn't substandard insurance being
sold then the standards won't matter, since they are already met. And turnabout is fair play: if you want to claim that there's excellent insurance
on offer that doesn't meet the standards, please provide some evidence!

xuenchenOverall, no big advantages to the majority of citizens. And there's no guarantees that these new standards will even work
or be enforceable.

xuenchenNot to mention that when employers start forcing people off group policies, there will be a financial nightmare for the
majority of people affected, especially with hours cut down to part time.

Having taken a look at these different national debts, a tendency comes out. Countries with significantly stronger social policies, including
universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, as well as free (cheap) universities tend to have significantly lower national debts than their more
"capitalistic" counterparts where many sectors are privatised.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.